determining the impact of individual goal setting aligned with ... · determining the impact of...

JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH

47

Determining the Impact of Individual Goal Setting

Aligned with Standards on Kindergarten

Students’ Math Proficiency

Karly Davis

Abstract: This research study explores the effectiveness of personal goal setting on students’ proficiency in math standards. A convenience sample of 18 kindergarten students from a diverse low-income school was used. Employing a

mixed-methods qualitative and quantitative research design, this study spanned over a five week period and utilized a

participant researcher. As the participant researcher, I implemented one intervention in the classroom and through data collection, I tracked independence in learning as well as increases in student math scores. Data collection strategies used

in the study include pre and post-assessments, a survey determining students’ feelings around goal setting and interviews

gauging students’ abilities to identify their goal. A teacher journal documenting observations of students working independently, small group interventions, and thoughts as the research progressed were employed as well. I have

synthesized and triangulated the data to show unexpected abilities of five and six year old learners. The results have

formed unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness of a spiral math program and implications for further research have been made.

y first two years of teaching have been very challenging, as schools have been shifting

into standards-based education. Districts have been working towards aligning

curriculum, reading, writing and math programs, and report cards directly to the

Common Core State Standards. This shift has not only caused a lack of consistency

among grade levels and schools, but has made tracking student progress very difficult. My

district has recently adopted the use of an online program titled, “Empower.” It is required that

we grade literacy and math proficiency through this program. Being directly aligned to the

Common Core, students will receive a P for “proficient” or an IP for “in progress.” The standards

that have yet to be introduced are left blank. With the pressures of getting students proficient in

the CC math standards and the requirement of tracking their progress through “Empower,” I

chose this topic for my research. The purpose of my study is to implement a strategy/multiple

strategies to better track student progress, make students aware of what they are learning and

why, and support them in becoming proficient in math standards. The main strategy I have

chosen to base my study around is the use of personal goal setting towards standards, along with

providing clear, unpacked, and kid-friendly objectives. I know that a main goal of Common Core

implementation into classrooms is to create stronger learner-centered environments and guide

students into being more in charge of their learning. I have seen how higher grades in my district

have students track their own progress through checklists, binders, and online resources.

However, I have not been able to see personally how this can be modified for younger students. I

hope to learn how independent kindergarten students can be in their own learning through goal

setting. Once students have set their goals with me, I hope to see how effectively they can work

towards proficiency. My intended audience is of course the other kindergarten teachers in my

district. Aside from kindergarten, I feel that all primary grades could benefit from research based

around strategies to implement the Common Core and support students in becoming independent

learners. The biggest impact I hope to make through this study is to benefit my students’ success

and proficiency in math standards. I hope to become more organized in tracking my students’

M


48

progress, creating stronger differentiation in math instruction and activities, and supporting

students into taking charge of their own learning.

Review of Current Literature

With schools just recently switching into standards-based systems, there is little current literature

into implementation strategies or ways to organize, track, and motivate students towards

proficiency. However, during my search for literature that supported these ideas of action

research, I found that goal setting was a main theme providing positive effects on student

motivation, performance, and independence.

Jie-Qi Chen and Gillian Dowley McNamee’s article, Positive Approaches to Learning in the

Context of Preschool Classroom Activities (2011) discusses that positive learning approaches,

such as attentiveness and goal orientation are associated with higher levels of early school

achievement in math and reading. Their research review found that children who frequently

exhibited positive approaches at the start of kindergarten were more likely to score high on

standardized math and reading achievement tests by first grade (Denton and West 2002). In their

quantitative study, Chen and McNamee scored 47 pre-kindergartners and 45 kindergartners

performances in seven activities, including drawing, playing number games, and reading books.

As the children’s performances were scored, their positive approaches to learning were rated and

included initial engagement, goal orientation, focus, and planfulness. In their results after one

month of data collection, it was found that positive approaches do have an effect on children’s

performances in school. Positive approaches were most highly correlated with performance in

solving pattern block puzzles and building a model car. In each of these activities were a clearly

defined goal, materials given to solve the problem, and a series of actions to reach the activity’s

goal. Chen and McNamee (2011) conclude that positive approaches to learning are an undeniable

contributor to young children’s performance. Where my research focuses specifically on the

effectiveness of goal setting, the other positive approaches to learning, such as focus and

planfulness, align directly to the implementation strategies of the Common Core Standards. It is

required that students, in order to demonstrate their understanding of standards, are given clearly

defined learning targets and focused steps on how to get there.

In Lowell E. Madden’s article, Motivating students to learn better through own goal setting,

(1997) he states that goal-setting is the level of achievement that students establish themselves to

accomplish. It needs to be clear that this is different from academic expectations in the

classroom, which students must reach to satisfy the standard established by the teacher. Rather

than a standard that must be reached, goal-setting is a target to aim for. Madden (1997) states as

well that there are three properties to goal-setting, which are specificity, difficulty level, and

proximity. The student needs to know exactly what should be accomplished, the difficulty level

should be moderate so that the goal can be reached, and proximity aims to help the learner reach

the goal quickly. In his qualitative study, Madden sought to to find what teachers do to motivate

their students’ learning. Therefore, he surveyed one hundred and twenty-six elementary teachers.

His research found that 62% of them employ goal setting. Betty Jane Punnet (2001) shares that

goals may provide a form of motivation in which persons compare current performance with

internal standards and the anticipated satisfaction on attaining a goal leads to sustained

involvement until performance meets or exceeds standards. She states this in her article, Goal

Setting and Performance Among Elementary School Students, where she experimented with “do

best” goals and specific difficult goals among the spelling performances of thirty sixth grade


49

students. Her research found that overall, “students with a specific goal did outperform those

without” (2001).

There are steps one must take to utilize goal setting effectively in the classroom to improve

student performance. Punnett (2001) suggests that specific and difficult goals improve individual

performance more than no goals or “do best” goals. In Madden’s (1997) qualitative study,

teachers report that they try to be very specific about what they are trying to accomplish rather

than “doing your best.” Punnett (2001) reported an average increase of 16% in her quantitative

study when subjects were given a specific target and a 20% productivity increase. The next

suggestion for effective goal-setting in the classroom is individualization. Because ability is a

prerequisite of performance, individually set goals are generally more effective than one goal for

all students (Punnet 2001). With setting individual goals, students experience more personal

success rather than stress from competition (Madden 1997). Lastly, in order to support students

in reaching their goals, they must be provided with frequent feedback. Teachers implementing

goal setting reported that providing rewards and rapid feedback to children when they work to

reach the goals help students achieve better. Rapid feedback is particularly effective because it

encourages evaluation and control of behavior on an ongoing basis (Punnett 2001).

Teachers play a critical role in helping young children develop positive approaches to learning,

such as goal-setting. Guiding children towards these approaches elevates their self-regulation

skills and executive functioning so that they learn more effectively and efficiently (Chen and

McNamee 2011). Overall, research shows that the use of individual goal setting accompanied

with appropriate feedback and teacher support tend to be very effective motivational approaches

to motivate students to learn (Madden 1997). Whereas two of the research articles adopted a

quantitative approach in specifically measuring performance aligned with goal setting, I will take

a qualitative approach. However, unlike Madden, rather than surveying teacher’s views, I will

survey, observe, and track my students and focus solely on the positive approach of goal-setting

in measuring kindergarten student’s proficiency in math standards.

Method

The next few years for school systems, students, and parents are going to be extremely difficult

as all involved are trying to find the most effective strategies for Common Core implementation

and understanding. The only consistency found among the grade levels in my district is the use of

an online tracking program directly aligned to language arts and math standards called

“Empower.” However, the pathways leading to the grading system are undefined. In an aim to

find an effective, consistent strategy that would best support my students in their proficiency of

these standards as well as track their progress in an organized way, I asked myself: “What impact

does personal goal setting have on kindergarten students’ proficiency towards math standards?”

While required to continue following the Everyday Mathematics curriculum, I wanted to also

clarify, “after providing clearly defined standards in kid-friendly language before each math

lesson, how effectively will students be able to identify the learning targets in math? I found that

there were other questions around goal setting that needed to be answered as well: “What impact

will having a goal setting binder have on tracking students’ proficiency towards math standards?”

“How effectively will students be able to work towards their goal with support of the teacher as

well as independently?” and “How will students feel about goal setting, pursuing, and reaching

goals?” These questions aim to answer all aspects around goal setting as an effective strategy to

build student independence, organize a tracking system, differentiate for the needs of all learners,

and best support student progress toward standard mastery.


50

Research Design

My research study has a mixed-methods qualitative and quantitative design. The aspects of a

qualitative design I felt to be most supportive of the research were the use of field notes, surveys,

and observations through a teacher journal. These allowed me to interpret my students’ thoughts

and actions around the intervention and provide a narrative for my findings. On the other hand,

through a math pre and post-assessment as well as tracking student interview and survey

answers, the quantitative design allowed me to analyze scores and percents to identify the

effectiveness of the intervention through numerical data by looking for patterns and student

increases in performance. I felt each type of design offered effective methods for adding depth to

my research and triangulation through the process.

Sample and Setting

As a participant researcher, I was given the advantage of working with my own class in a school

where I have taught for two years. Therefore, I had a prior strong connection the sample and

setting of the research. My kindergarten classroom is located at Carl J Lamb School in Sanford,

Maine. This school is a federally recognized low income school serving 560 students from

kindergarten to sixth grade. A convenience sample of eighteen students took part in this study,

including twelve boys and six girls. Of those students, three struggle with unpredictable

behaviors, two have IEPs, and one has a 504 plan. There are also two paraprofessionals in the

classroom during the math block, one providing one-on-one support for a student, and one

supporting me in management and various interventions. All students in this study have

permission for their photographs to be taken and student work as well as observations were

shared with no name attached. With nothing being conducted out of the ordinary of my own

teaching practice and with no risk of harm being done to my students, it was not required that

families be notified of the research taking place. However, I sent a research notice to the school

administration and shared the goal setting intervention with the parents of my students during

conferences.

Intervention

The intervention used in my research study was a goal setting binder for my students. Each

student had their own section in the binder including their pre-assessment, the Common Core

math standards written in kid-friendly “I Can” statements, and a goal setting worksheet. Once the

pre-assessments were conducted, during individual conferences with students, I had them color

in a box next to the standards where they showed mastery. Using the standards not colored in,

students selected one to be their goal and filled out their goal setting worksheet. From there, I put

students into groups by similar goals and created a math center system that was aligned to the

standards selected. The centers were color coded to student goals and each color had one to three

centers for students to choose from. The math block during the research consisted of sixty

minutes. The first fifteen minutes to half hour of the block included teaching a lesson from the

Everyday Mathematics program. Next, students were sent to work on centers that would help

them progress towards their goal. Each center round was about fifteen minutes long and two

rounds of centers were completed a day. Every other day, students were allowed to work on any

center of their choice, including those that were not their assigned color. This supported students

in practicing and gaining skills in other areas of counting and cardinality. The center system


51

allowed me to differentiate centers for students as well as provide choice to support and create a

learner-centered environment. One limitation of the math block during research was my

requirement to continue following the spiral of the district math program. Unfortunately none of

the lessons taught during the research were directly focused on counting and cardinality skills.

Results will show that this caused some confusion of learning targets for students.

Methods of Data Collection

The data collection methods chosen for this study reflect different aspects of qualitative and

quantitative designs. I used a teacher journal to document individual goal setting conferences,

small group intervention work, and how effectively students worked independently during center

time. I conducted pre and post math assessments (see Appendix A) that were directly aligned to

the Common Core math standards and tracked what standards students were proficient in prior to

goal setting as well as the progress made at the end of data collection. These assessments are also

what I used to log student proficiency through “Empower.” Randomly throughout the study, my

paraprofessional administered student interviews (see Appendix B) to document how effectively

students could identify their personal goal and/or the goal of the math lessons for that day. The

third week of my study, I added worksheets into the math centers and collected student work to

give me a better sense of how effectively students were working on their own and their

understanding of strategies used to reach their goal. Lastly, at the end of the study, students

completed a survey (see Appendix C) by coloring in a happy face, medium face, or sad face

documenting how they felt about goal setting and their personal performance towards proficiency

of their set goals.

Validity

Validity in research encompasses whether or not the tools used are accurate in reflecting what the

researcher wants to measure. In choosing the tools to be used, I tried my best to make sure my

research question and sub-questions could be answered precisely. The assessment chosen

measured all aspects of the Counting and Cardinality standards of the Common Core. The

interviews were conducted by my paraprofessional to remove any personal bias from myself as

well as potential prompting I may have used with my students. These were also conducted

randomly throughout the study. The surveys were completed by students anonymously, however,

being five and six years old, the validity of this tool in accurately measuring the feelings of

students around goal setting is a concern. For my teacher journal, I tried to remain unbiased,

however, as a participant researcher, I do realize in my observations and reflections, some bias

may be present.

Procedures of Action(s)

• Week 1: Math Counting and Cardinality pre-assessments were conducted to all students

to gain baseline data and results were logged onto “Empower.”

• Week 2: I had a whole class conversation around goal setting to lead into the individual

goal setting conferences that were administered (see Appendix D). During this time,

each student filled in the standards they were proficient in (see Appendix E). They were

then read the rest of the unmastered standards and chose one to be their goal. The goal

setting worksheet was filled out documenting their goal and possible steps to reach it

(see Appendix F). Conferences were documented in the teacher journal. Students not


52

being met with worked on math centers. At this time, a center system was not in place

and students could choose any center offering various manipulatives, worksheets, and

games to work on.

• Weeks 3 and 4: The math center system was put into place, where students were

assigned a color corresponding to their goal and tubs were labeled with colors (see

Appendix G). I began meeting with small groups of students to provide interventions,

strategies, and practice on specific counting goals. My paraprofessional began

conducting random interviews at this time and my assistant principal came in for an

evaluative observation of my math practices, but being aware of the research, also

conducted short interviews with students on their goals.

• Week 5: Math Counting and Cardinality post-assessments were conducted and results

were logged onto “Empower.” Student surveys were conducted to determine feelings

around goal setting and personal performance.

Findings

In analyzing the data, I coded each page of my teacher journal to easily reference the

observations, conferences, and interventions documented throughout the study (see Appendix H).

Quotes from students were coded using student numbers and the context of the quote. Patterns

were looked for and analyzed within this coding system. The surveys and interviews (see

Appendix I and J) were analyzed through a qualitative reflective view as well as put into graphs

and analyzed quantitatively based on the number of given answers. Lastly, the pre and post

assessment scores were graphed and overall student performance was analyzed and reflected

upon.

After providing clearly defined standards in kid-friendly language before each math lesson, how

effectively will students be able to identify the learning targets in math? Since the Sanford

School District is piloting the Everyday Mathematics 4 program, I was required to follow this


53

program for math instruction during my research. Therefore, each math block included an

Everyday Mathematics lesson followed by math centers aligned with student goals. Because each

math lesson from the program focused on a variety of skills, I was curious to see if students

would be able to show understanding of the lesson by identifying the objective. Results from the

interviews showed that only 31%, or five students, were able to identify the correct goal of the

math lesson. The other eleven, or 69% of students were unable; five responses were about

student goals, three responses were either, “I don’t know,” “I can’t remember,” or “I forgot,” two

responses were about the activity being worked on at the time, and one response was random,

stating, “I learned with Mr. Donahoe to cut numbers.” (Mr. Donahoe is the art teacher). See the

pie chart below.

What impact will having a goal setting binder have on tracking students’ proficiency toward

math standards?

As part of this study, I not only wanted to answer what students were capable of when goal

setting was introduced, but also the impact a goal setting binder would have on my personal

progress of student tracking. Throughout the study, I kept a teacher journal logging each time I

provided interventions to small groups including the strategies taught and the progress each child

in each group was making. This helped me to determine what strategies to teach next. Here are

some examples of notes taken:

• “Student 7- counted by 10s to 40; Student 15- counted by 10s to 80; Student 12- counted by

10s to 100; Student 9- first went from 40-100, then did great!” (tj,p8,l1-4)

• “Student 1- wrote 11 for 12 and didn’t know what 14 or 16 looked like” (tj,p8,l19-20)

• “Student 8, 17, & 11- did good counting 20 things and telling me what would come next if one

more was added; Student 4- gets stuck on teen numbers” (tj,p9,l4-7)

Not only did having a structured math center system give students more focus and practice

towards their goals, but it had the same impact on myself as a teacher in tracking student

progress. Similar goals formed small groups for me to work with and allowed me to focus on a

specific set of skills to teach and monitor. The journal provided a great place for me to log

student progress and check back later to determine next steps. I feel as though in answering the

true impact of the goal setting binder on tracking student progress, it’s hard for me to remain

unbiased, as I am basing the results around my own personal impact and success.

How effectively will students be able to work towards their goals with support of the teacher as

well as independently?

Before beginning my research, I was experiencing difficulty in getting students to work

independently on math centers. On my math shelf, I have ten centers students could choose from

and I spent a great amount of time making sure each center was different, providing a range of

games, manipulatives, and puzzles that students could complete. However, I still found I was

doing more managing than teaching and students were fooling around more than learning. This

sub-question for my research was a big one, because what would be the point of goal setting if

students were unable to work on their goals independently? The answer to this question was a

surprising one. Notes from my teacher journal, pictures of students working, and student work

show positive results below.


54

Teacher Journal:

• “The clear explanations of the center system and the purpose of the tubs made students

extremely excited to get to work.” (o,iw,p3)

• “..students working much more independently on their tubs. It seems as though they are trying

harder knowing it’s towards their goal.” (o,iw,p4)

• “students independent...they choose quickly and get right to work.” (o,iw,p6)

• “Previous to having a structured system with only specific tubs students could choose from,

students were unable to work on their own. They fooled around, used the materials incorrectly,

and got bored more easily. However, with the tub system, students got right to work and

worked the whole time, only little management was needed from my paraprofessional.”

(o,iw,p1)

Students Working:

• Top left: student working on counting to 100 by ordering tens.

• Top right: students working on writing numbers 1-20 by putting a 1-20 puzzle together and

using the laminated sheets to write the numbers that come next.

• Bottom left: students working on counting 20 things by using the table and counting out the

corresponding number of bears.

• Bottom right: students working on counting 20 things by spinning a spinner, counting the

objects, and finding and coloring the corresponding number.


55

Student Work:

Left: student work practicing writing numbers 1-20 by filling in the missing numbers.

Right: student work practicing counting 20 things by counting groups of objects and

filling in the corresponding numbers.

Quotes from my teacher journal, pictures of students working during math centers, and collected

student work all triangulate and show that students needed little support from teachers to work

independently and effectively towards their goals. Having focused math tubs and providing a

purpose for the activities motivated students to work hard on their own and with their peers. I

also feel another aspect that supported independent learners was a “Ways to Reach Our Math

Goals,” list I put together based upon the goal setting worksheets (see Appendix K). Before each

round of math centers, we read this list together and discussed what it meant and what it looked

like. Again, this provided students with clear expectations and purpose for their activities and

showed effectiveness in their abilities to work independently.

How will students feel about goal setting, pursuing, and reaching their goals?

In creating a learner-centered environment, other than simply providing students with choice and

supporting them in becoming more independent, students need to be given the opportunity to

share their feelings about aspects of the classroom and their learning. Therefore, at the end of the

study, I had students complete a survey, where I read them the questions and asked them to color

in a happy face, a medium face, or a sad face. For each question, I made it clear what the happy,

medium, and sad face meant in the specific context. The table below shows the results.


56

Question Happy Face Medium Face Sad Face

1. Do you know what your goal means? 12 students 4 students 2 students

2. Do you think you are close to meeting your goal? 14 students 3 students 1 student

3. Do you like working towards your goal? 14 students 2 students 2 students

4. Do you like to set goals? 14 students 2 students 2 students

5. Does goal setting make learning math easier? 14 students 3 students 1 student

6. Do you want to set new goals? 11 students 2 students 5 students

Overall, the results show that the majority of the students responded having a positive experience

through the goal setting process by circling smile faces for the six questions. One area of the

results that surprised me was that five students showed they would not like to set new goals by

circling the sad face. One of these students circled sad faces for every question, showing a

negative experience through this process. However, what surprised me most was the combination

of responses resulting in a sad face for setting new goals. Two students circled a smile face for

question 4, but responded by not wanting to set new goals. Two students circled a smile for

question 5, but again, responded by not wanting to set new goals. I wondered why students who

liked setting their goal and working towards their goal and who felt that goal setting made math

easier, would not want to set new goals. I wonder if this is because they want to continue

working on their current goal, if they didn’t want to go through the process again, or if they just

didn’t care for the experience.

Did students meet their goals?

After giving the post-assessment to each student, I was able to see if students met their goals.

Results showed that nine students (50%) were able to meet their goals. Below, I broke this down

to show how many students from each specific goal were able to meet it, make progress, or stay

the same.

I Can Write Numbers from 0-20 (4 students)

• Student 1- did not meet, but progressed by writing up to number 10 to writing up to

number 13

• Student 13- met goal

• Student 15- did not meet, made same mistake of writing 20 backwards (02)


I Can Tell if the Objects in One Group is Greater Than/Less Than/Or Equal to the Objects in

Another Group (1 student)


I Can Count Up to 20 Things (6 students)



57

• Student 4- did not meet, makes same mistake of skipping from number 15 to number 18




• Student 16- did not meet, continues to double-tag

I Can Count to 100 By Ones and Tens (5 students)

• Student 5- did not meet, went from counting to 30 to counting to 100, but needed prompts

after 89 and 99, counted to 100 by tens

• Student 7- did not meet, went from counting to 29 to counting to 39, counted to 100 by

tens

• Student 9- did not meet, went from counting to 13 to counting to 39, counted to 100 by

tens


• Student 14- did not meet, still gets stuck after 39, counted to 100 by tens

I Can Compare Numbers 1-10 (1 student)

• Student 10- did not meet goal, made no progress, very confused with concept

I Can Write a Number for a Group of Objects (1 student)


I have also created a table to show the breakdown of specific goals, goals met, and goals not met.

Goal Number of Students

that Met Goal

Number of Student that

Did Not Meet Goal

I Can Write Numbers from 0-20 2 2

I Can Tell if the Objects in One Group is Greater

Than/Less Than/Equal to Objects in Another Group

1 0

I Can Count Up to 20 Things 4 2

I Can Count to 100 By Ones and Tens 1 4

I Can Compare Numbers 1-10 0 1

I Can Write a Number for a Group of Objects 1 0

Results show that the majority of students from the counting 20 things group were able to meet

their goal and the majority of students from the count to 100 group were unable to meet their

goal. These results surprised me in a way that only half of the students were able to meet their


58

02468

101214161820

Pre-Assessment Scores Post-Assessment Scores

goal, however, when broken down by goal, I am not surprised. Most of the students who met

their goal were from the counting 20 objects group and when working with those students, I

found that the mistakes they made on the pre-assessment were from lacking strategies while

counting. Once they were taught those strategies, they were able to succeed in their counting. On

the other hand, counting to 100 is a very large goal, especially since the students who chose that

as their goal could only count to 20 or 29. I did not expect students to be able to make such a big

leap in such a small amount of time. Although when their goal was set, it was based on the actual

standard of counting all the way to 100, I should’ve broken their goal down by creating one that

was attainable, such as counting to 30, 40, or 50. Each student from this group, however, was

able to count to 100 by tens, which they were unable to do on the pre-assessment, showing that

some progress was made.

Results from the Pre and Post Assessments

Aside from determining whether or not students could set a goal, work towards it independently,

and meet it, I wanted to see from my study if aligning math centers with a specific set of

standards would aide students in progressing towards proficiency.

In analyzing the results from the pre and post math assessments, I created scores based upon the

number of questions students answered correctly out of the total eighteen questions on the

assessment. This does not necessarily show proficiency because one standard may have required

a student to get a number of questions correct to prove proficiency in that given skill. Results

show that all scores, besides one that stayed the same, increased. Although only half of students

met their goal, 17 out of 18 students were able to progress in other areas of counting and

cardinality and increase their scores on the assessment.

Discussion

One main purpose of this study was to find a strategy that could help students aim towards

proficiency but also help me better track student progress, and log proficiency onto “Empower.”

For the first trimester of this 14-15 school year, it was not required for teachers to log any


59

counting and cardinality standards unless students were proficient, meaning if students were not,

we would just leave it blank. However, since this study focused on that set of skills, I chose to

use the tracking I was completing to my advantage. After conducting the pre-assessment, I

logged all proficient standards onto “Empower,” I then went back after conducting the post-

assessment and did the same. The difference in the logs in just four weeks is shocking.

Limitations

Sample

The small convenience sample used in this study limits the reliability of the results. The study

would’ve been stronger if all kindergarten students at Carl J Lamb School could’ve participated

and random control groups could’ve been assigned. That way, results would show if the group

being provided the intervention over a certain period of time had higher scores than the

group without the intervention.

Caption: The top two photos are results from the pre-assessment and the bottom two photos are results

from the post-assessment. The rows are each student, the p’s are the standards students are proficient

in, and the blank squares are standards students are in progress with. Results show that after four

weeks of goal setting, interventions, and independent work, all students made great gains in their

proficiency towards math counting and cardinality standards.


60

Observations

One of the questions my study asked was how effectively students would be able to work on their

own towards their goal. Although student work and progress helped to show that they were able

to work on their own, I would’ve liked to have been able to complete more observations of

students working. During center time, I was always working with a small group of students

providing them with interventions towards their goal. Because of this, I was only able to write

down a few short notes on how the rest of the class was doing. Although it looked as though

students were working effectively, the accuracy of my observations from my desk are limited.

Data Collection Period

I felt the short four weeks of data collection was not enough and next time would extend the

overall study. Although I was surprised at the growth that was made in such a short amount of

time, the data collection period felt very rushed. I would’ve like to provide more focused

interventions to small groups and individual students as well as differentiating the centers even

more by providing new activities each week.

Generalizability

Because of the short data collection period as well as the participants of my own kindergarten

classroom, it makes it very difficult for me to generalize my findings to a larger group. I’m

unable to say whether or not a goal setting intervention would have the same impact on another

class, another grade, another school, or a different set of standards. However, because so much

progress was made from my students, as I continue to set goals on new standard clusters and

collect data, I may be able to generalize results in the future.

Implications for Future Practice

Through my research, I found that the use of goal setting and a well-structured math center

system had a very positive impact on student motivation, independence, and progress during the

math block. When students are able to choose an attainable goal, they seem more excited to learn

and work towards it. By aligning the math system with student goals, they were given purpose

with the activities they were completing. Prior to setting up this system, although the math

centers offered variety for students and students were able to choose what they would be working

on, centers were never used the right way and students got bored very easily. However, when

students were given structure and purpose with the activities, they got right to work and used the

tubs the way they were taught. Moving forward, I will continue setting goals with my students.

However, as the year progresses, I will not always have to conduct a pre-assessment because

some students will remain working on the goal that was previously set, whereas other students

will move forward with their needs. This intervention has truly helped to create a learner-

centered and differentiated classroom in the aim to support all students with all needs towards

proficiency.


61

Implications for Further Research

If I were able to conduct this study without any program requirements from my district, I

would’ve planned to have all of my math lessons align directly to the counting and cardinality

standards. This way, students would be given direct instruction on the different strategies needed

to become proficient in the variety of counting skills. However, having to follow the Everyday

Mathematics 4 program made my math block seem like two different things. First, I would teach

a lesson on shapes, or measuring, or decomposing numbers and next students would work on

applying their knowledge towards counting skills. During this, I would ask students what the

target of the math lesson was. It didn’t seem reasonable to expect students to know the difference

between the goal of the math lesson and their own personal goal when the two weren’t even close

to being aligned. A major question arose throughout my study of whether or not a spiral program

is the most effective in supporting students towards proficiency.

Summary

Overall, I feel I had a positive experience engaging with the process of action research. I chose

to focus my attention around the Common Core to find ways to better my practice, organization,

and tracking and help support student proficiency in math. Although this process was very

stressful and felt rushed, I am extremely pleased with not only the progress made by my students,

but what I learned about teaching math and becoming more organized. My students seemed to

truly enjoy setting goals and working towards them and I can say I’m proud of the interventions I

was able to provide and my organization and tracking strategies. I cannot wait to share my results

with staff and help show them that students of any age are capable of taking charge of their

learning!

Action research is like coloring with broken crayons, the process is challenging, but the finished

product at the end was worth the struggle, however, would the finished picture look any different

if colored with new crayons?

REFERENCES

Bjork, R.A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A.

Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance:

Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chen, J., & McNamee, G. (2011). Positive approaches to learning in the context of preschool

classroom activities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(1), 71-78.

Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of

psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.


62

Madden, L. (1997). Motivating students to learn better through own goal-setting. Education,

117(3), 411-415.

Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J.

(2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-

2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov.

Punnett, B. (2001). Goal setting and performance among elementary school students. Journal of

Educational Research, 80(1), 40-43.

Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixing practice problems. Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education, 40, 4–17.

Schmidt, R.A., & Bjork, R.A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in

three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–17

Son, L. K., & Simon, D. A. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, metacognition, and educational

implications. Educational Psychology Review, 1-21

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Karly Davis is a kindergarten teacher in Sanford, Maine. She has been teaching kindergarten for

three years and looks forward to furthering her career in other grades. She holds a Bachelor of

Arts in Liberal Studies with a concentration in English and a Master of Science in Education in

Teaching and Learning from the University of Southern Maine. She truly enjoyed the experience

and knowledge gained from being an action researcher and will continue to find the most

effective strategies that support lifelong learning.

http://ncer.ed.gov/

determining the impact of individual goal setting aligned with ... · determining the impact of...

Documents